1. Opportunity: court, racquet, balls, people to play, tennis to watch, etc., this is usually never the deciding factor but, without these opportunities, playing the sport at any level is nearly impossible!

2. Athleticism: The ability to walk and chew gum at the same time is certainly a prerequisite to playing any skilled activity within a level of adroidness and aptitude, however, in my experience some of the most accomplished players were far from the most gifted in this department.

3. Desire: The desire to seek information, practice, drill, play, explore, invent, employ, travel, enter tournaments, read, and study the game, (not to mention dedication within such desire to go beyond the realm of the minimum and push beyond the natural inclination to give up or quit) is critical...However, as you will see, even having this may not equate a player into reaching their potential.

4. Education: This is the most important. Education refers to the understanding of correct patterns to work within, as it applies to the activity. If we teach playing the piano with our two index fingers for twenty years, we will fail to reach our piano-playing potential. (Unless we only had two index fingers!) This is where the argument of having a coach is discussed. Many players simply can't see what they should be doing, or, they can't emulate that which they see they should be doing. Coaches can guide players who might not have the ability to connect the how with their own body movements.

Yet, some players rely completely on the pro for their guidance. This can be detrimental to the player's progression. All players must be able to be critical thinkers both on and off the court. They need to take ownership of their game and not just rely on the pro to direct them. Otherwise, they will never be able to adjust to situations on the court as well as discover their own elements that contribute to their game.

However, the vast majority of players who are self taught, (who don't study the game and only go by what ever feels right), almost all never reach their potential. This is because advanced strokes and skilled play in tennis is seldom comfortable nor familiar to most all who pick up a racquet for the first time.

There is so much to this idea that I wrote my two books with these concepts discussed heavily. (What many have said separate my books from the rest.)

There are always exceptions to any rule. However, if we are considering helping the masses reach their potential, we should not focus on the exception and look at the rule to determine the proper path in which one should take to reach their potential. What is amazing is that if we train 1000 players exactly the same way, no two will end up playing alike. Human individuality, personality, perception and strengths and weaknesses will always evolve any foundation, (conventional or otherwise), and create individual differences between each player.

Something to think about!

Click to expand...

Great advice Dave, as usual. I consider you as one of the best minds in tennis and was impressed with the first post I ever read of yours on tennisone which I am a member. I purchased your book based on your knowledge of the game and the stuff you were coming up with that no one else was doing. The statement that you made on one of your posts, was, the reason you are not getting better is you want to win. I thought of course I want to win who doesn't. After a little deeper thought a bell rung and things have not been the same for me. I have improved a great deal and owe it all to that one statement you made. Would like to stop in and get you to autograph my book "Tennis Mastery" If I ever get to Utah. A big thank you for all you have done for the sport of tennis.

Tennis does have boundaries that help reduce the risk that a player won't realize their potential should they do something outside of those boundaries.

These boundaries are time tested and are the basis of learning tennis and growing with the sport at a reasonable rate (with practice) to help a player reach their goals.

Tennis instruction lays out a plan for those players that want a plan and want to get better at what others have learned and documented that helps increase the chance of a higher level of play while reducing the risk of injury.

What you seem to forget is you are either instructing yourself at known information, someone is instructing you from known information, or both.

People learn in a variety of ways, not just your way. And your examples make absolutely no sense.

You are exaggerating a technical part of a stroke (technically perfect topspin) to a reasonable shot selection choice (going for a winner).

Both should be learned while something that is in the realm of perfection should be strived for while understanding when to go for a winner.

And some would like to know a way that sets them up for ongoing growth, reducing the chance of injury, and highlighting their strengths while they learn and work on their weakness.

Geez, dude, please, sometime, for goodness sakes, MAKE SENSE!

Click to expand...

Great to see you back on the board BB. There are lots of advice given on this board they range from no clue to middle of the road and great. In my opinion yours are solid with examples to support.

Where did this quote originate? Is this from another thread or from a deleted post in this thread??? And why does this need to be proved, MSNB?

Click to expand...

Well, I wish I could say its been an interesting discussion - we seem to get to certain points in these discussions and then we start going round and round until nothing makes any sense.

I believe in post #153 that challenge was to "offer proof" that the split-step worked in that "was it effective in changing directions". Although this poster later said there was only one study that offered proof the "conclusion was" that the "advantage" of the split-step was minimal at best.

First of all there have been hundreds of studies and discussions on the subject in one form or another going back many years. This isn't something that someone came up all of a sudden and suddenly everyone just followed suit. I am not aware of any study that concludes the split-step is a waste of energy - if there is such a study, lets take a look but IMO nobody will be able to reference any such material.

I think the better way to settle this discussion quickly would be to just ask anyone to state any pro player who DOESN'T use the split-step in one form or another. I get to watch a lot of very good tennis and I'm not aware of any player who doesn't use the split-step - that's proof enough for me?

Abstract;Many sports require quick lateral footwork. The split step is a preparation for the lateral movement in tennis footwork. However there has been no evidence to show the effectiveness of the split step. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to show the effectiveness of the split step by comparing kinetics and kinematics of the limb during the lateral movement between the split step and without the split step. Ten skilled tennis players (average age: 21.2 years) participated as subjects. A five camera motion analysis system and a force plate were used at 120Hz. The subjects were instrumented with thirteen retro-reflective markers on the lower limb. Each subject moved in lateral direction as quickly as possible in response to an instruction signal which flashed on the left or right side randomly. The crossover step (pivot on the foot closest to the ball and step with the opposite foot) was used as the initial step. The reaction time (to reach the peak in the Y-component of the ground reaction force) was an average 0.11 sec faster with the split step than without the split step. Maximum knee flexion angles in the split step were larger than that without the split step. The time to reach the peak knee flexion angle was 0.13 sec shorter with the split step than without the split step.The distance that the marker on the sacrum moved in 1 second was 0.38m longer with the split step than without the split step. Using the split step, subjects could bend knees faster and larger and move to lateral direction more quickly with less force since the gravity can be used to support knee flexion. In addition, player could be able to change foot position in the air. Furthermore the timing of the split step could be a key point. (author abst.)

The JEM is a nice guitar except I don't like ceramic magnet pickups, floating bridges ( though I love Floyd's but set up flush ) and thin Ibanez necks

Click to expand...

Ibanez are funny. Many shredders love them. For example, my buddy plays a 7 string Universe exclusively and hates Les Pauls and Teles. He finally got his ibanez endorsement this month. I love the heavy tones he gets with it, but it has zero versatility.

I personally love the Les Pauls and Teles. Thats my thing. I play a Fender Jazz bass. I just like the go to's because I know how they blend and sit in a mix in any genre. If I am sent to record on a rap beat and then have to play on a singer songwriter track the next hour, I know my J Bass will work perfect for both. Can't mess with the classics.

Well, I wish I could say its been an interesting discussion - we seem to get to certain points in these discussions and then we start going round and round until nothing makes any sense.

I believe in post #153 that challenge was to "offer proof" that the split-step worked in that "was it effective in changing directions". Although this poster later said there was only one study that offered proof the "conclusion was" that the "advantage" of the split-step was minimal at best.

First of all there have been hundreds of studies and discussions on the subject in one form or another going back many years. This isn't something that someone came up all of a sudden and suddenly everyone just followed suit. I am not aware of any study that concludes the split-step is a waste of energy - if there is such a study, lets take a look but IMO nobody will be able to reference any such material.

I think the better way to settle this discussion quickly would be to just ask anyone to state any pro player who DOESN'T use the split-step in one form or another. I get to watch a lot of very good tennis and I'm not aware of any player who doesn't use the split-step - that's proof enough for me?

Click to expand...

papa, you know although its good to question conventional wisdom, like you said, often the answer is if every pro does it it must be the way.

Even sprinters use a very small form of the split step to accelerate as quickly as possible. This is so obvious it's not even worth debating. It's almost like saying "prove that you need to use a racket to hit the ball at a high level".

It is also used in badminton. However, the "hop" is usually a bit more subdued that it is for tennis. In some instances, some players players quickly "sink" (lowering their COG) as the opponent hits the shuttle -- this has a similar effect to the more overt "hop".

Fairly certain that the split-step is also used in squash & cricket. I've used a variation of the split-step for volleyball as well.

in all sports i played where quick reactions are needed, we were taught to be on your toes, on the balls of your feet, always ready, never back on your heels etc. I never heard the term split step until tennis, and I didnt know what it was until reading these forums, it seems like its just basic common sense. and good practice. Individuals would probably find their own optimal version of the split step so it works best for them, I would guess you dont need to follow the text book all the time, just take what works for you, and allows you to keep on improving.

in all sports i played where quick reactions are needed, we were taught to be on your toes, on the balls of your feet, always ready, never back on your heels etc. I never heard the term split step until tennis, and I didnt know what it was until reading these forums, it seems like its just basic common sense. and good practice. Individuals would probably find their own optimal version of the split step so it works best for them, I would guess you dont need to follow the text book all the time, just take what works for you, and allows you to keep on improving.

^^^Ready position BTW is more then just spreading your legs out. You should sit your butt back more like your getting ready for a deadlift. Then you can explode a bit more into your split and react quicker..There is actually alot of fine tuning that can be done with good coaching. Its not that natural at all for most athletes IMHO - unless they are coming from another sport.

Its great Bungalow Bill is back and Dave Smith still posts. Though its a shame we lost the serve doctor. That guy is a good coach too. But to be honest I don't understand the BB fighting issue..
I still think he is wrong about the whole pronation thing - I absolutely think it something that needs to be taught for alot of athletes. But that doesn't mean you can have a civil disagreement.

I mean no one told this semi-pro football player that a bit of drilling on pronation his throwing motion would screw him up..

^^^Ready position BTW is more then just spreading your legs out. You should sit your butt back more like your getting ready for a deadlift. Then you can explode a bit more into your split and react quicker..There is actually alot of fine tuning that can be done with good coaching. Its not that natural at all for most athletes IMHO - unless they are coming from another sport.

Its great Bungalow Bill is back and Dave Smith still posts. Though its a shame we lost the serve doctor. That guy is a good coach too. But to be honest I don't understand the BB fighting issue..
I still think he is wrong about the whole pronation thing - I absolutely think it something that needs to be taught for alot of athletes. But that doesn't mean you can have a civil disagreement.

I mean no one told this semi-pro football player that a bit of drilling on pronation his throwing motion would screw him up..

Okay, okay, I give. When did we argue about pronation? Or did we? Did I misread? Perhaps we just disagreed in HOW it should be taught.

Remember, some coaches choose to teach certain things indirectly rather than directly. In other words, they incorporate the pronation of the arm training by focusing on something else.

I do not teach pronation, I teach people how to serve. Because I teach people to serve, pronation training is built in but it is not the focus unless absolutely necessary - which I rarely run into.

To the rest of y'all

Bungalo Bill's character will always be a controversial one. It is planned that way. Bungalo Bill will always ask "why or why not." You will test your knowledge and skills with me. Why? Because I learn here too and if you provide "full of it" answers, well, Bungalo Bill will challenge that.

And if you get offended, Bungalo Bill smells shark bait and will move in for the kill. THAT IS WHAT SOME OF YOU DONT LIKE! WHEN BB CHALLENGES YOU, YOU RESORT TO YOUR INSECURE WAYS AND INSULT AND THEN PLAY VICTIM WHEN BUNGALO BILL TAKES ANOTHER BIG CHOMP ON YOUR BUTT. YOU'RE STUCK! YOU KNOW IT!!! YOU'RE WOUNDED!!! AND CHOMP CHOMP YOU GO DOWN!!!

WOW! OUCH!! I KNOW IT HURTS WHEN I CHOMP ON YOUR ARM, BUT IT MAKES YOU BETTER! lol

YOU END UP SCURRING THROUGH YOUR RESEARCH TO BEAT ME, AND YOU MAY, BUT IT AIN'T GONNA BE EASY.

SOME HAVE PASSED. OTHERS LIKE YOU TENNISCOACHFL ARE STUCK IN THE SHARK TANK - CHOMP CHOMP

Really now, geeez, holding a grudge for two months? Now that makes me laugh!

I know, how about a big internet group hug. Will that make everyone feel better?

Hey, I got a bazillion posts arguing with you, calling you bad names, the such, and I get no respect?
Of course, I recognize that more than 95% of what you say HELPS some people, and they are happy with your answers. I just like to argue.

Hey, I got a bazillion posts arguing with you, calling you bad names, the such, and I get no respect?
Of course, I recognize that more than 95% of what you say HELPS some people, and they are happy with your answers. I just like to argue.

Click to expand...

You get respect! But we agreed on a couple of recent posts. So now, I dont know which way we are going. I might have to recruit another enemy just to keep me sharp.

I love all of you guys - both friends and enemies. The friends keep the board happy and light, the enemies keep it spiced up and full of energy! LOVE IT!!!

in all sports i played where quick reactions are needed, we were taught to be on your toes, on the balls of your feet, always ready, never back on your heels etc. I never heard the term split step until tennis, and I didnt know what it was until reading these forums, it seems like its just basic common sense. and good practice.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. Many sports utilize the "split-step" for specific uses. Much of it involves changing direction.

Tennis uses the split-step slightly differently than some sports. Although how you perform it is similiar, it is the timing (when) you do it and how you incorporate it in a rally that can be difficult or breakdown.

One of the biggest reasons players need to work on their footwork is to build endurance and conserve energy. Repetition and conditioning help a player not only move about the court better but also be able to sustain good movement when under stress or when they are tired. Just as your stroke shouldn't break down so shouldn't your footwork.

Once the footwork goes or you start falling behind and have to play more defensive, you lose more points. That is what MakingSenseNotBabies isn't telling anyone. Although I know he knows this.

Footwork is not about getting to one ball. For that, who cares what or how you move? It is about getting to all balls and angles while maintaining your balance and staying in the point while conserving energy for the long match ahead. Good footwork helps you a lot when you are tired and start to get sloppy. That is when your footwork training really starts to stand out.

Now, if all you aspire to be is a 3.0 player, then working on your footwork may not be as important as a player at the 5.0 level. Same with your form and technique. From this perspective, I can agree with MakingSenseNotBabies.

Individuals would probably find their own optimal version of the split step so it works best for them, I would guess you dont need to follow the text book all the time, just take what works for you, and allows you to keep on improving.

Click to expand...

The split-step is the split-step. Not much difference in how it is used or what it is. It should be incorporated throughout your game. Where you might get into a preference is using a step-out vs. a gravity step for balls further out from you - that sort of thing.

Now, if a player is having trouble with the split-step when coming to net (S&V or Doubles player), they can use the studder step (I call it squeeky shoes steps) and quickly change directions. Especially Senior players.

Yes, that is correct. Many sports utilize the "split-step" for specific uses. Much of it involves changing direction.

Now, if a player is having trouble with the split-step when coming to net (S&V or Doubles player), they can use the studder step (I call it squeeky shoes steps) and quickly change directions. Especially Senior players.

Click to expand...

at 56 i think i qualify as a senior. i find if i stutter step im not as well balanced as if i take a proper split step.

I dont' think we did (argue) just pointing out that posters could have civil disagreements. I am kinda surprised your so disliked by some posters.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, yes, well, that goes with the turf. I write a lot around here mainly to serve the players here. However, some misinterpret that I am trying to "hog" the show. It probably looks like that. And you are right it is just some. Like anything, you have those that like you, those that are in the middle, and those that don't. It's life.